Myers v. Bizzell

Fourth Circuit

Myers v. Bizzell

673 F. App'x 310

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 27, 2016

DocketNo. 16-1083

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 673 F. App'x 310 (Myers v. Bizzell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Myers v. Bizzell, 673 F. App'x 310 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Loushonda Myers appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and denying reconsideration of its orders and the magistrate judge’s orders in her civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Myers v. Bizzell, No. 5:12-cv-00714-BO, 2016 WL 225671 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 8, 2016; Jan. 19, 2016; July 30, 2015; July 28, 2015; Apr. 23, 2015; Jan. 22, 2015; filed Dec. 2, 2014, entered Dec. 3, 2014; Aug. 16, 2013). We grant Myers’ motion to exceed the informal brief length limitations and deny as moot her request to amend or correct the caption. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Loushonda Myers appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and denying reconsideration of its orders and the magistrate judge’s orders in her civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Myers v. Bizzell, No. 5:12-cv-00714-BO, 2016 WL 225671 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 8, 2016; Jan. 19, 2016; July 30, 2015; July 28, 2015; Apr. 23, 2015; Jan. 22, 2015; filed Dec. 2, 2014, entered Dec. 3, 2014; Aug. 16, 2013). We grant Myers’ motion to exceed the informal brief length limitations and deny as moot her request to amend or correct the caption. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

673 F. App'x 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-v-bizzell-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack